Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Peace Ghost14
Many empirical evidences and multiple tests exist for religious beliefs ... Your claim that "nothing" has been proven in religion is false.
For example Surah Rum ... States that the Romans that were defeated by the pagan Persians will within 3 to 9 years defeat the pagans back. This is exactly what happened.
We can say that the Qur'an ... All of it was uttered by the holy prophet Muhammad (SAW), through the sciences of ilm-ul-riijaal we can indeed show that the Qur'an that we have is the same one that came from the Prophet (SAW).
The Qur'an states that it is preserved and behold we see each generation of Muslims do not come unless there are multitudes in them who memorise the whole of it and then transmit it to their next generation.
The challenge of the Qur'an, which is also its falsification test is for any verse to be brought like it ... If it were for that matter not from God ... people have since time not been able to emulate the Qur'an ...
Like Med said, that prediction was hardly specific. More so, others have made predictions that have also been "true", are those people to be considered prophets now?
Furthermore, this idea that the Quran is somehow unique is never explained. What does this mean exactly? How is it unique?
And memorization is does not make a piece of literature unique. The tribes that live isolated in southern India still pass on their "scripture" verbally, and have been doing so since humans first migrated to India. Their DNA can actually be traced to the earliest humans out of Africa. Does that make you believe in their religion?
How about a simple test: Noah's Ark. It is absolutely ridiculous given the dimensions of the ark, to think that two of every animal in the world could fit in there. Even if that was true, how did the people in the middle east "save" the animals that lived on other continents? And where is Noah's Ark?
Of course its okay to doubt the existence of God. Many people do on a regular basis. And my entire discussion has been to make the point what if we just lack the tools and technology to verify the existence of a deity? After all most scientists and philosophers like Plato, Aristotle etc were all religious men who believed in Zeus, Aries and countless other deities.
Actually, others here are arguing that it is not okay to doubt. And if doubt is reasonable, then someone concluding that faith is not enough, and deciding to leave a religion is also reasonable. Except if you live in a religious country in which case you are an apostate. Furthermore, if God does exist, the only measurable aspect of the deity would be nature itself, which is called science. There is no way to verify whether Shaitan is actually imprisoned during Ramadan.
I agree that a lot of thinkers were deists. My assertion, and apparently yours as well, is that doubt, and therefore rejection of a religion, not God, is reasonable as well.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
well, this is what they selected, why didnt they select 144 atoms instead of 133? this is how they defined a unit of second, what is logic behind selecting this specific length?
Everything is based on something...to make sense of it to ourselves. For example, why are there 24hrs in a day? Why 365 days in a year? Why is boiling point of water is 212 degrees Fahrenheit?
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Actually, others here are arguing that it is not okay to doubt. And if doubt is reasonable, then someone concluding that faith is not enough, and deciding to leave a religion is also reasonable. Except if you live in a religious country in which case you are an apostate. Furthermore, if God does exist, the only measurable aspect of the deity would be nature itself, which is called science. There is no way to verify whether Shaitan is actually imprisoned during Ramadan.
I agree that a lot of thinkers were deists. My assertion, and apparently yours as well, is that doubt, and therefore rejection of a religion, not God, is reasonable as well.
The others are welcome to assert whatever they wish. My point is that in reality many leave a faith and join another in a weekly if not daily basis. That has nothing to do with the element that God exists. After all nobody has been to proven it, just like a few years ago nobody could prove Higgs Boson existed. The absence of evidence does not mean the absence of its existence. For one who speaks actively about nature and science you are unwilling to accept the simple fact that Science for all its facts is as wibbly wobbly as a Star Trek Dilithium warp core.
Our knowledge is limited. Our equipment is limited and specifically defined with a basic assumption that the way we calibrated it or built it is by all means the most efficient. That is not a fact. That is an assumption.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
The illogical part was that your premise was taking a position on the subject at hand. That is what is illogical.
Ghost14
This is not what you call illogical ... If that was the case then every scientific hypothesis that is then tested for its truth is also illogical, because every hypothesis is "taking a position on the subject at hand" before that position is proven.
Now ... please reconsider what is and what is not logical ... And listen to my argument carefully ... I have been analysing the way two or more premises are connected - that way is logical ... Whether the premises are proven or not is at the moment not my concern ... When it is accepted that my argument is valid by you ... then and after that we can discuss the premises ... for their truth.
For example:
Allah (SWT) has no beginning ... what this means to the Muslim is "we understand Him that way" but to a sceptic this same statement should be taken as "if you entertain the idea that Allah (SWT) exists, then make sure you assert that He has no beginning" ...
Which means that when the question is asked ... "If everything has a creator, then who created God?" that would be a silly question to ask, because you have denied the Attribute that is the condition of the belief in God ... We do not just believe in a Deity - as Muslims ... We believe in a Deity with the given revealed Attributes ... if you want to confront us with the concept of God then do so with the same idea of God that we have ...
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
So again, you have to be willing to believe otherwise you are misguided by it? That's called the placebo effect. That is again emotion.
Peace Ghost14
If you don't know something then it is better to stay away from using it ... Placebo - This is a medically inactive chemical that is administered to give ACTUAL relief to the recipient. The fact that it has no actual measured affect, does not mean that it does not have a positive affect that works ... To deny the placebo of its place in medicine is to call the doctors who prescribe it fake.
And 'emotion' it is not ... placebo affect is attributed to a psychological self-healing process not an emotional one - for to be correct about it - there are real chemicals such as MDA and MDMA that release serotonin - for the feel good effect. Real chemicals with active centres that genuinely affect the brain to produce real emotions ... Your whole set of analogies are wrong.
Tell me how can the part I have highlighted in blue be contentious? I don't understand ... Because the other parts of the Qur'an qualify this statement ... For example ... Being willing to believe is not the same as blindly believing ... being open minded is not the same as bending over and accepting everything ... Yes, be fair and if you want scrutinise, but accept valid arguments, and be logically astute ... don't say something is illogical when in fact it is not ... that is what it means to be "willing to believe" ... Kufr is about "hiding" it is directly associated to the type of activity of a person who does not want to be fair with the subject matter.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Like Med said, that prediction was hardly specific. More so, others have made predictions that have also been "true", are those people to be considered prophets now?
Furthermore, this idea that the Quran is somehow unique is never explained. What does this mean exactly? How is it unique?
And memorization is does not make a piece of literature unique. The tribes that live isolated in southern India still pass on their "scripture" verbally, and have been doing so since humans first migrated to India. Their DNA can actually be traced to the earliest humans out of Africa. Does that make you believe in their religion?
How about a simple test: Noah's Ark. It is absolutely ridiculous given the dimensions of the ark, to think that two of every animal in the world could fit in there. Even if that was true, how did the people in the middle east "save" the animals that lived on other continents? And where is Noah's Ark?
Peace again Ghost14
It was specific - can you give me a prediction of what will happen in 6 to 9 years time, the main news regarding America?
Furthermore all of the stated things in the Qur'an are either yet to come true or have come true ... none have been wrong ... *nada *... not a single one ... Many of the predictions of the "would-be-prophets" have been more wrong than right ... We can compare if you like ... ;)
Uniqueness of the Qur'an is clear to the Arabs who speak Arabic - The style of the Qur'an cannot be emulated - even the best Arabic either sounds like a poem or like hadith - it never resembles the Qur'an. Then you have the absolute rules nested within the language - the grammar compliments the meaning ... In the Qur'an we know that "Allah encompasses all things and nothing encompasses Him" ... Interestingly the construct of possessor-possessed (mudaf-mudaf-ilay) in Arabic denies any mudaf (possessed) form assuming its position with an 'AL' before it ... Al - literally means "The" it turns the nakhira (indefinite) to a definite (ma'rifa) as it does in English - hence "the" is called the definite article. While in English we are allowed to say "The ring of the king" in Arabic we are only allowed to say "The king's ring" where the form is like this "ring of the king" ... it has to drop the "al" in order for it to work. Likewise, the word "Allah" cannot be the mudaf ... because it starts with the letters "AL" ... so we have by meaning nothing can possess Allah, and by text nothing can put the word Allah in the possessed position.
This is only one example - the whole language is like this ... and the Qur'an capitalises on this ... then it further has meaning perfect and utilises a minimal approach to delivering the maximum meaning. It is consistent with itself ... This is why there is a challenge that still exists today ... any criticism is refuted by itself ... through other verses - it takes care of itself - and then it says that it does that ... People have tried bringing a verse that is "like" it and have failed ... Lately there are people who have brought many verses that are indeed unlike it - because they are inconsistent with its verses. People have copied it and changed single words here or there and by doing so they change the meaning and it no longer remains like it ... Then when recited it is beautiful and beauty is a form of perfection ... It is not regular and patterned like poetry, but still has form and rhythm. To get all these things right is difficult - nay - impossible for us.
So these verses that are passed on in India - Can you give me just 7 verses from memory - I can guarantee you that every Muslim here even the not so religious ones can give you that much from the holy Qur'an. I'm waiting to see if you can provide those verses ... Every single Muslim "my kids" know at least 7 verses of the Qur'an ... and it is perfectly copied with no changes throughout time ... Can you show me evidence of these Indians being able to copy verbatim without error?
Noah's Ark ... not all animals were taken ... this is the Muslim position. Ark is said to be on Mount Cudi. It is more a matter of faith than fact and science cannot disprove it ... either.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Actually, others here are arguing that it is not okay to doubt. And if doubt is reasonable, then someone concluding that faith is not enough, and deciding to leave a religion is also reasonable. Except if you live in a religious country in which case you are an apostate. Furthermore, **if God does exist, the only measurable aspect of the deity would be nature itself, which is called science. **There is no way to verify whether Shaitan is actually imprisoned during Ramadan.
I agree that a lot of thinkers were deists. My assertion, and apparently yours as well, is that doubt, and therefore rejection of a religion, not God, is reasonable as well.
This is the "greatest" compliment for science I heard ever. Equating science with nature??? Unbelievable.....
Science is study of physical world where as nature is physical world including all natural phenomena and living things.
Nature is, cow eats grass and makes milk, and can science reproduce such phenomena?
You rely on science to this extent, is that rationality?
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
For the record Ghost14
If God exists then we need to determine what are the appropriate Attributes of God before we can start to say that nature is an aspect of God ...
For those people who believe nature is an aspect of God then they have a problem because nature is transient and changes and that would mean God is transient and changing too ... just like us humans ... None of this refutes the idea of God according to Islam since that idea is that God is nothing like His Creation and is Unseen - which means science cannot measure the Divine Presence.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
why this compulsion to pit God against science?
To believers God created everything. Meaning God created science too. So you cannot argue against existence of something when you are inside it!
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Med911
Again showing lack of logical nous are you? If something is not false then it is possible ... If something is possible then those who observe within the confines of possibility should not be criticised for doing something as if it is false.
If there are some places in discourse where logic can neither tell us if something is true nor false ... Then the only sound conclusion is to say that logic in that instance is deficient. And this reference is to deduction rather than induction.
Probability of aliens is higher than God ... .??? How did you come by that absurd conclusion? Probability cannot just be made up ... It is supposed to be backed up with data ... What is your data on this statistic?
Ofcourse there is a possibility for many many things out there. That doesn't necessarily make it valid or factual. Anything is possible, but that doesnt mean all possibilities actually ARE. The problem with you is, and the difference between you and I is that i admit the possibility of God, but acknowledge that God is not a FACT, while you consider the possibility of God as though it were a FACT. Your not wrong for believing in something that is within the realm of possibility, your wrong for not admitting that you simply believe in something without evidence.
And are you kidding me about Aliens being less likely then GOD?
There are trillions of galaxies, with BILLIONS of stars in each, each which likely have planets... The likelihood that if there is life on Earth, then a similar thing can happen on other planets is astronomically high given that there are MILLIONS of potential earths out there. Yet the very really possibility of Aliens given all the planets out there is less believable then the concept of God?!?!
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
^ Just an interesting addition, our timeline on this planet is very short. Meaning that even if humans live for millions of years the chances that we encounter another species that also hits their stride within that time period, and is located close enough to us, and actually does stumble into us, is very low. The "time window" is very small. Kind of depressing.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
^ Just an interesting addition, our timeline on this planet is very short. Meaning that even if humans live for millions of years the chances that we encounter another species that also hits their stride within that time period, and is located close enough to us, and actually does stumble into us, is very low. The "time window" is very small. Kind of depressing.
I dont know, that is assuming a lot. For one, if a society manages to evolve their technological level to such a degree that they can inhabit places outside their home world, then the likelihood of mass extinction seems far less likely. Extinction of a society seems far more likely for one that is exclusively planet bound.
Secondly, considering how little we understand of the Universe, I am always astounded by scientists who tell us that the vast distances would certainly preclude any sort of visitation. The Physics we know today is still a work in progress, we are only now coming to grasp with the understanding of parallel worlds. so imagine the capacities of a society that had a head start on us. Im not talking a million year head start, I mean just as little as 500 years. Imagine how much more we will know of the world in 500 years...